Understanding the context of records creation and use: ‘Hard’ versus ‘soft’ approaches to records management

Abstract

Current records management methodologies and practices suffer from an inadequate understanding of the 'human activity systems' where records managers operate as 'mediators' between a number of complex and interacting factors. Although the records management and archival literature recognizes that managing the active life of the records is fundamental to their survival as meaningful evidence of activities, the context where the records are made, captured, used, and selectively retained is not explored in depth. In particular, the various standards, models, and functional requirement lists, which occupy a vast portion of that literature, especially in relation to electronic records, do not seem to be capable of framing recordsrelated 'problems' in ways that account for their dynamic and multiform nature. This paper introduces the idea that alternative, 'softer' approaches to the analysis of organizational functions, structures, agents, and artifacts may usefully complement the 'hard', engineering-like approaches typically drawn on by information and records specialists. Three interrelated theoretical and methodological frameworksnamely, Soft Systems Methodology, Adaptive Structuration Theory, and Genre Theory-are discussed, with the purpose of highlighting their contributions to our understanding of the records context.

Recordkeeping professionals’ understanding of and justification for functional classification: Finnish public sector organizational context

“…Their awareness of other kinds of classifications was generally low. Also prior studies (Foscarini 2009;Orr 2005) have noted the consensus among records professionals that functional classification is suitable and even the best option for records organization. It cannot, however, be established in the study that recordkeeping professionals perceived recordkeeping tools as relevant precisely because the tools were based on functions.…”

“…Despite the conceptual confusion, usability problems and lack of methodology, records management professionals see the functional approach to classification as positive (Foscarini 2009;Orr 2005). Such a scheme that is familiar to users, can with conscientious implementation be regarded as an ''invaluable tool'' for records management (Gunnlaugsdottir 2012, pp.…”

‘Some records manager will take care of it’ – Records management in the context of mobile work

“…Mobile workers were not aware of the organization’s records management policies and functions, and more crucially, records management professionals were unfamiliar with mobile work practices and its challenges for records management. Foscarini [40] states that actual work practices are often different from the ways in which laws, regulations, internal manuals and individuals themselves articulate how work gets done. In our study, it appeared that the views of individual actors – records management professionals and mobile workers – were far apart.…”

Conceptualizing and studying information creation: From production and processes to makers and making

“…In comparison to information management, the archives and records management literature has focused on documenting the contexts and making of records (e.g. Henttonen, 2015) as key aspects of the records life‐cycle/continuum (McKemmish, 2001) even if recent scholarship has called for better understanding of these processes (Douglas, 2018; Foscarini, 2010). Documentation of information creation processes is also acknowledged as a key factor in enabling research data management and reuse (Yakel, Faniel, & Maiorana, 2019).…”

“…Lund, 2004), data (data management Faniel et al, 2019), records (archival studies and records management, e.g. Foscarini, 2010; Douglas, 2018), or physical and digital artifacts (makeology, e.g., Peppler, Halverson, & Kafai, 2016a, 2016b), whereas the term used for actions is coupled with theoretical perspectives on how things come into being in terms of, for instance, creating, making or producing. In this respect, creation appears to unfold as the most theoretically unspecific term whereas with making and production, it is easier to sense direct and indirect influences of making (cf.…”